His Majesty's Solicitor General v Jason-Steven: Wong

In contempt proceedings arising from covert recording and publication of a private adoption hearing, deliberate defiance of statutory and procedural restrictions protecting family proceedings may warrant immediate imprisonment. The court must assess seriousness by culpability and harm, consider whether a fine is sufficient, and impose the shortest custodial term that properly reflects the contempt. Mitigation, including admissions, remorse, previous character, delay and the effect on others, must receive due weight. Suspension is considered only after the appropriate term has been fixed and may be refused where the contempt is too serious. The principal purposes of contempt sentencing are to mark the court’s disapproval and deter similar conduct. Costs normally follow the event, but any order must be fair, just and reasonable, with enforcement controlled where appropriate.

The His Majesty’s Solicitor General applied for committal and sentence after the court found Jason-Steven: Wong in contempt for covertly audio-recording a private adoption hearing and disposing of the recording and associated documents for publication on YouTube.

The contempt finding had been made in an earlier judgment, [2023] EWHC 2684 (Fam). The present hearing concerned sanction and costs. The issues included the seriousness of the conduct, the aggravating and mitigating features, whether imprisonment should be immediate or suspended, and the appropriate costs order.

1. Sentence. The court imposed four months’ imprisonment for the covert recording and a further four months for disposing of the recording for publication, to run concurrently, making four months’ imprisonment in total.
2. The sentencing approach in HM Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 was adopted. The court assessed seriousness by reference to culpability and harm, considered whether a fine would suffice, and imposed the shortest custodial term properly reflecting the gravity of the contempt. Mitigation and the possible impact on others were taken into account, as was the question of suspension.
3. The contempt was particularly serious because it concerned private adoption proceedings involving a child. The recording was deliberate and covert, the child’s and mother’s names were published, the publication undermined the administration of justice, and the Defendant remained essentially unrepentant. The protection afforded to private family proceedings applied whether proceedings were current or completed.
4. The court considered the sentencing principles in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392, Patel v Patel & O’rs [2017] EWHC 3229 (Ch), Hale v Tanner [2000] EWCA Civ 5570, Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, and HM Attorney General v Dowie [2022] EWFC 33. The absence of an existing order relevant to the Defendant reduced the utility of a suspended committal directed to future compliance.
5. Although prison crowding was a matter the court could consider, it did not alter the conclusion that an immediate custodial term was just and proportionate.
6. Costs. Applying the approach in the appeal in Dowie [2022] EWCA Civ 1574, the Defendant was ordered to pay £5,000 towards the Applicant’s costs of £30,000. Enforcement was not permitted without leave.

The judgment was a first-instance sanction decision following the earlier contempt finding in [2023] EWHC 2684 (Fam). No appeal history is stated.